If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reason? If anyone is talking about cross-platform high quality code my immediate first suggestion is QT. What makes you / your projects so special that it NEEDS to be GTK?

Reason - I don't do cross platform, I do Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is about Gtk. Qt for Ubuntu is an afterthought, especially after they declared Kubuntu a community project, it was never as polished as Ubuntu anyway.

They still would need to add wayland to main, put it on the CD, and make it mandatory for anyone who plans to use anything related to Gtk.

no, you can switch backends, to have the GTK libs run under Wayland or X11... You can specify the backend with the GDK_BACKEND variable.

And you don't need a wayland display server, you just need the core wayland libraries. I guess the issue with the GTK backends is that it's not truly modular, and it needs to load the dependancies for all compiled in backends at run time, instead of just loading the specified backend like QT...

I don't see any problem with the decision at this time. Wayland is not mature or ready for general consumption in any way, so why should they ship GTK with Wayland support? The very few users that like to experiment with Wayland just need to compile/install a Wayland-capable build of GTK. No big deal.

Reason - I don't do cross platform, I do Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is about Gtk. Qt for Ubuntu is an afterthought, especially after they declared Kubuntu a community project, it was never as polished as Ubuntu anyway.

It was my understanding that Canonical had plans to develop Unity on Qt. Then they decided to continue with gtk. I think they should have opted for Qt. As some people said, Unity-2D in Qt worked very well.

Sure they don't contribute to some projects in the open - they prefer to modify stuff in their own forks to avoid other benefiting from their enhancements.

...except for the fact, that anyone can take ubuntu's patches (and/or sources) for any given app/lib/etc and use them if they like, as some people do... for example, in the AUR (Archlinux User Repository) there are versions of software that include certain ubuntu patches.

Ubutnu/Canonical 'prefer' there own forked code because (in many cases) there patches would most likely be rejected by their corresponding upstream (developers) anyway. Ubuntu's patches often aren't useful (from the developers perspective) and/or don't fit into the upstream project's goals. ie: why would gnome want to add ubuntu's patches to gnome-system-settings? (that are only useful for Unity), or why would gnome want to add ubuntu's gtk2/3 patches for overlay scrollbars? (which for me anyway, would be a feature i would NOT want).

I guess the issue with the GTK backends is that it's not truly modular, and it needs to load the dependancies for all compiled in backends at run time, instead of just loading the specified backend like QT...

...but the dependancies really are not that much.

They wouldn't be much if all it did was require the packages be installed. But requiring the wayland libraries and their dependencies be loaded into memory, even though nothing in Ubuntu is likely to be using them any time in the next year or two? I think that's a reasonable blocker... no good reason to proceed with shipping Wayland-enabled Gtk+ until the Gtk+ backends can be isolated more effectively.

It was my understanding that Canonical had plans to develop Unity on Qt. Then they decided to continue with gtk. I think they should have opted for Qt. As some people said, Unity-2D in Qt worked very well.

Yes, Qt should have been their choice, but they were biased towards Gtk from the get go, plus, their developers are like script kiddies, they like writing a lot of stuff in Python even when it's a bad idea (software center and other core sophisticated stuff is written in Python, no wonder it loads like a fat cow).